The new changes look promising ,but I have one more thing that I hope gets Kabam's attention

The changes are looking really good but here's one thing that I believe needs to change, the value of we get for real world money. I play a lot of different games from Call of Duty( a console game) to other mobile games. One thing that I see in those other games is usually for the amount of money you spend usually get something pretty decent.

For example on The Simpsons Tapped Out game $20 gives you enough to buy maybe about six or seven items that can really make a difference.
The Cavalier Crystals ,feature crystals and those crystals you buy with units ,if the odds stay the same, then I believe we need to be able to get a lot more of them for $100 worth.

I really think for 20$ you should get 10 cavs. In 10 cavs , you really usally might get 2 champs that are worth anything.
Some people might think my suggested proportion of calves to real war money might be a little too extreme, either way I really think Kabam needs to re-evaluate the value of real money to what you can get in game. Any other games that I've played that you can use real-world money for items ,whether they be a console game or mobile ,just gives you so much more value for your money.

If anything I think kabam really needs to re-evaluate the value of real-world money against the cost of items and things you can get in the game

Comments

GroundedWisdom

That would lead to a serious imbalance between P2P and F2P.

Masterpuff

That would lead to a serious imbalance between P2P and F2P.

There already is a serious imbalance. But this would make it a whole lot worse.

SpideyFunko

yes, let’s increase the imbalance between spenders and FTP players. let’s.

DNA3000

The changes are looking really good but here's one thing that I believe needs to change, the value of we get for real world money. I play a lot of different games from Call of Duty( a console game) to other mobile games. One thing that I see in those other games is usually for the amount of money you spend usually get something pretty decent.

I think the exact opposite. In a perfect world, you wouldn't be able to buy an advantage over other players period. Only your gameplay would matter. But the game needs to make money to fund its operations and make a reasonable profit for the company that invested in it and operates it, so someone has to pay.

If we force everyone to pay the exact same amount, the game would be a subscription. And a huge chunk of players would be unable to play as they couldn't afford it. Meanwhile many people could pay more but wouldn't need to, so wouldn't.

The best option given the real world limitations is for most players to be able to play for free if they wish, and for people willing to spend money to get some sort of advantage for doing so. But that advantage should be as small as possible. And who decides what is good enough, or not good enough? The spenders do. If they spend, they are saying the things they are buying are worth spending on. If they don't spend, they are saying the things being offered for sale are not worth spending on. We raise the value until we make enough money, and then stop.

The game currently makes Netmarble over $250 million a year. I don't think we need to raise the value of cash purchases higher than that. The spenders have voted with their wallets and decided that the cash offers are plenty good value for their money. The people who don't think the offers are worth it are people we don't need the cash from. I would rather they play for free, if they decide the value isn't worth it, than increase the value until they are convinced to spend. The game doesn't need their cash that badly.

Bringr_of_Rain1

Any word on if magneto buff will apply to both versions of the character?

@Kabam Miike

GroundedWisdom

That would lead to a serious imbalance between P2P and F2P.
There already is a serious imbalance. But this would make it a whole lot worse.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not agreeing with the mainstream idea that F2P need to compete with P2P. In terms of Offers, even those are limited in such a way that whatever is acquired through spending isn't so much that free Players can't play alongside those that spend. It's just that with the proposed idea, there would be a self-fulfilling prophecy that creates a large enough gap that the people who worry would likely not sleep. Lol. I mean, in terms of keeping up, people who don't spend won't keep up with people who do. That goes without saying. What I'd like to keep is the fact that they don't have to.

GinjabredMonsta

Any word on if magneto buff will apply to both versions of the character?

@Kabam Miike

Wrong thread my man

Worknprogress

The changes are looking really good but here's one thing that I believe needs to change, the value of we get for real world money. I play a lot of different games from Call of Duty( a console game) to other mobile games. One thing that I see in those other games is usually for the amount of money you spend usually get something pretty decent.
I think the exact opposite. In a perfect world, you wouldn't be able to buy an advantage over other players period. Only your gameplay would matter. But the game needs to make money to fund its operations and make a reasonable profit for the company that invested in it and operates it, so someone has to pay.

If we force everyone to pay the exact same amount, the game would be a subscription. And a huge chunk of players would be unable to play as they couldn't afford it. Meanwhile many people could pay more but wouldn't need to, so wouldn't.

The best option given the real world limitations is for most players to be able to play for free if they wish, and for people willing to spend money to get some sort of advantage for doing so. But that advantage should be as small as possible. And who decides what is good enough, or not good enough? The spenders do. If they spend, they are saying the things they are buying are worth spending on. If they don't spend, they are saying the things being offered for sale are not worth spending on. We raise the value until we make enough money, and then stop.

The game currently makes Netmarble over $250 million a year. I don't think we need to raise the value of cash purchases higher than that. The spenders have voted with their wallets and decided that the cash offers are plenty good value for their money. The people who don't think the offers are worth it are people we don't need the cash from. I would rather they play for free, if they decide the value isn't worth it, than increase the value until they are convinced to spend. The game doesn't need their cash that badly.

I've never understood the people upset at "bad" offers. Ideally as someone who doesn't spend or even spends very casually you'd want the game to sell as small as an advantage for as much as possible. This keeps the game free for those that choose to play it that way while still making enough money to fund it if people are buying them.

So the less they can sell for more, the better off the overall game balance is. People cite Cavs as breaking the game but the number of people that are actually buying enough of them to make any real difference is incredibly small. If that very small group is willing to spend that much for so little value, how does that become a major game issue for people?

Do I think they sell too much sometimes? Absolutely. I think they monetized t5c too early and being able to spend to get a R3 6* before you could even earn one in game was a very bad move imo. Outside of things like that, I don't see it as being as large of an issue as a lot of people like to claim. Obviously I'm looking at it from the side of someone that spends a lot so there's plenty of bias but I'd like to think I'm looking at it as objectively as possible

Aomine_Daiki10

This thread ain't useful at all.

DNA3000

I've never understood the people upset at "bad" offers.

Honestly, i don't understand people who claim they treat this game like a job either. But I suspect there's a lot more overlap between the people who claim the game is a job and those who wish the cash offers contained much larger value than random chance would suggest. Its a materialistic viewpoint that measures the worth of the game in terms of how much stuff the game gives you per hour, and how much stuff the game gives you per dollar, without regard for how those things are part of a larger multiplayer gaming experience.

Whathappened

I was hoping you were going to talk about AQ tickets. Still not happy about those.

G0311

We don't get the same value for the money spent as in other games even similar type games. The problem is that there is massive jealously and envy at people have more and more champs. Your account is not in competition with another, plus the big spenders already have all the champs, and resources.
A better value for our money would actually make it easier for those to get a chance to get better champs and resources . Lowering the costs will make it so more people (not just those spending 1000$ on cavs) will get that chance.
But if you have the mentality for some ideological reason that you will not spend not even 5$ and feel that you deserve to enjoy everything for free and at the same time dont want it make it easier for anyone else except the big spenders to get a chance for great champs, well there is no reasoning.

Also im an end game player, I have all the champs I need and want , I have no reason to spend any.
I just believe we all should have better value for our money.

I work hard, went to school and make great money. I have more expensive and better things then people who don't do those things and also there are people who have better payed careers than me and have more or better than me. I dont envy them nor to I pity those with less, but envy is the real problem with this community

The point is better value for our money just like other games, but I see where this post is going so need to come back to it. 😁

SpideyFunko

I was hoping you were going to talk about AQ tickets. Still not happy about those.

@Whathappened wrong thread

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Jh_Dez

I'm not much of a spender but if I were to start putting more money into the game, yes I definitely would like an advantage for doing so or getting my money's worth

DNA3000

The changes are looking really good but here's one thing that I believe needs to change, the value of we get for real world money. I play a lot of different games from Call of Duty( a console game) to other mobile games. One thing that I see in those other games is usually for the amount of money you spend usually get something pretty decent.
I think the exact opposite. In a perfect world, you wouldn't be able to buy an advantage over other players period.
I have to disagree with this. Spending should in fact give people an advantage. They are technically putting more into the game than f2p.

Skill is important, and people shouldn't be able to spend their way into the top tier...However spending SHOULD in fact give an advantage over f2p.

I don't think you understood my post. In a perfect world you wouldn't be able to buy an advantage over other players, not because spending offered no advantage, but because nothing was for sale. Games generally only sells things because they have to make money, not because it thinks people should be able to spend their way to the top. Except in Asia.